Smythgreyhound v. M/V "Eurygenes"’s Empirical Analysis
666 F.2d 746 · 1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2005
2 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Teamsters Local Union 657 v. Rodriguez · In re Whittington · Leather's Best, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. S.S. Mormaclynx, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees · Mitsui & Co. v. American Export Lines, Inc. · Peter Pannell, Libelant-Appellee v. United States Lines Company
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“especially in cases where COGSA does not apply ex proprio vigore.... [W]e hold today that in the absence of clear and unambiguous language indicating agreement on the definition of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“This bill of lading shall have effect subject to all the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States of America, approved April 16, 1936, as if set forth herein. The defenses and limitations of said Act shall apply to goods whether carried on or under the deck, to carriage of goods between U.S. ports, or between non-U.S. ports, before the goods are loaded on and after they are discharged from the vessel, and throughout the entire time the goods are in the actual custody of Carrier, whether acting as carrier, bailee or stevedore. If this bill of lading is issued in or the goods are delivered to a locality where there is in force a compulsorily applicable Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ordinance or statute similar to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading dated at Brussels, August 25, 1924, then it is subject to such Act, ordinance or statute before the goods are loaded on and after they are discharged from the vessel and throughout the entire time the goods are in the actual custody of Carrier, whether acting as carrier, bailee or stevedore. Carrier shall be entitled to the full benefit of all rights and immunity under and all limitations of or exemptions from liability contained in any law of the United States or any other place whose law shall be compulsorily applicable. If any term of this bill of lading be repugnant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States or any other law compulso”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“that no shipper ever actually intends that its recovery will be limited to $500 per container, or that any carrier, in the absence of an express agreement, intends that the recovery should exceed $500 per container.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.